Prosecutor to Investigate Origins of FBI Trump-Russia Probe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, in other news, the State Dept. has identified violations regarding Clinton's email.......

The State Department revealed Monday that it has identified "multiple security incidents" involving current or former employees' handling of Hillary Clinton's emails, and that 23 "violations" and seven "infractions" have been issued as part of the department's ongoing investigation.

The information came in a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is responsible for overseeing the security review.

"To this point, the Department has assessed culpability to 15 individuals, some of whom were culpable in multiple security incidents," Mary Elizabeth Taylor, the State Department's Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, wrote to Grassley. "DS has issued 23 violations and 7 infractions incidents. ... This number will likely change as the review progresses."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-violations-security-incidents

And when will the State Department investigate the open emails and unsecure phones being used by Donald and Ivanka Trump as well as Jared Kushner and others? What about Colin Powell and GW Bush?

Whataboutism........LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

So giving states money for ballot box security and requiring people to report illegal foreign solicitaitions have no chance of passing the GOP senate.

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Don't rely on CNN to provide the truth. Look into the bill.

I see nothing wrong with it. Please tell me what parts you object to.

REQUIRING paper ballot AND outlining early voting standards is directly interfering with local decisions surrounding elections. It's as if the Democrats are putting elections under federal control.
And, requiring the president and VP to release their tax returns has no place in this bill.
These things have nothing to do with election security. There are other issues as well.

It isn't a matter of federal control, it is a matter of setting baseline security standards as a result of the findings in the Mueller Report.

And yes, the tax returns absolutely do - we need to know if our elected officials are beholden to anyone other than the American people. It hasn't been an issue since Watergate, until now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

And Amy Klobuchar’s and Mark Warner’s bill in the Senate? What’s wrong with that one?

[Anonymous]

Soloman has another good piece today. Questioning the use of both the dossier and the "black cash ledger" in FISA warrants........

When the final chapter of the Russia collusion caper is written, it is likely two seminal documents the FBI used to justify investigating Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign will turn out to be bunk.

And the behavior of FBI agents and federal prosecutors who promoted that faulty evidence may disturb us more than we now know.

The first, the Christopher Steele dossier, has received enormous attention. And the more scrutiny it receives, the more its truthfulness wanes. Its credibility has declined so much that many now openly question how the FBI used it to support a surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign in October 2016.

At its best, the Steele dossier is an “unverified and salacious” political research memo funded by Trump’s Democratic rivals. At worst, it may be Russian disinformation worthy of the “garbage” label given it by esteemed reporter Bob Woodward.

The second document, known as the “black cash ledger,” remarkably has escaped the same scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as Trump's campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.

In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017 for bank records to prove he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.

There’s just one problem: The FBI’s public reliance on the ledger came months after the feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn’t be trusted and likely was a fake, according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/449206-fbi-warned-early-and-often-that-manafort-file-might-be-fake-used-it-anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Soloman has another good piece today. Questioning the use of both the dossier and the "black cash ledger" in FISA warrants........

When the final chapter of the Russia collusion caper is written, it is likely two seminal documents the FBI used to justify investigating Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign will turn out to be bunk.

And the behavior of FBI agents and federal prosecutors who promoted that faulty evidence may disturb us more than we now know.

The first, the Christopher Steele dossier, has received enormous attention. And the more scrutiny it receives, the more its truthfulness wanes. Its credibility has declined so much that many now openly question how the FBI used it to support a surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign in October 2016.

At its best, the Steele dossier is an “unverified and salacious” political research memo funded by Trump’s Democratic rivals. At worst, it may be Russian disinformation worthy of the “garbage” label given it by esteemed reporter Bob Woodward.

The second document, known as the “black cash ledger,” remarkably has escaped the same scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as Trump's campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.

In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017 for bank records to prove he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.

There’s just one problem: The FBI’s public reliance on the ledger came months after the feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn’t be trusted and likely was a fake, according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/449206-fbi-warned-early-and-often-that-manafort-file-might-be-fake-used-it-anyway

If you're referring to the warrant on Carter Page, hadn't he left the campaign by then? If so, then Solomon's statement is categorically false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soloman has another good piece today. Questioning the use of both the dossier and the "black cash ledger" in FISA warrants........

When the final chapter of the Russia collusion caper is written, it is likely two seminal documents the FBI used to justify investigating Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign will turn out to be bunk.

And the behavior of FBI agents and federal prosecutors who promoted that faulty evidence may disturb us more than we now know.

The first, the Christopher Steele dossier, has received enormous attention. And the more scrutiny it receives, the more its truthfulness wanes. Its credibility has declined so much that many now openly question how the FBI used it to support a surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign in October 2016.

At its best, the Steele dossier is an “unverified and salacious” political research memo funded by Trump’s Democratic rivals. At worst, it may be Russian disinformation worthy of the “garbage” label given it by esteemed reporter Bob Woodward.

The second document, known as the “black cash ledger,” remarkably has escaped the same scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as Trump's campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.

In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017 for bank records to prove he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.

There’s just one problem: The FBI’s public reliance on the ledger came months after the feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn’t be trusted and likely was a fake, according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/449206-fbi-warned-early-and-often-that-manafort-file-might-be-fake-used-it-anyway

If you're referring to the warrant on Carter Page, hadn't he left the campaign by then? If so, then Solomon's statement is categorically false.

On Saturday evening, those materials — an October 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page, along with several renewal applications — were released to The New York Times and other news organizations that had filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to obtain them. Mr. Trump had declassified their existence earlier this year.

“This application targets Carter Page,” the document said. “The F.B.I. believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.” A line was then redacted, and then it picked up with “undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election in violation of U.S. criminal law. Mr. Page is a former foreign policy adviser to a candidate for U.S. president.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/carter-page-fisa.html

[Anonymous]

Thank you for this, PP. We need all the facts here.

[Anonymous]

“Barr wants Durham to question CIA analysts about their finding that Putin interfered to help Trump. But that question has already been asked—by a Trump loyalist. Mike Pompeo grilled the analysts in his own review and found nothing wrong with their analysis.”
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/07/12/pompeo-cia-russia-findings-1409190?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Barr wants Durham to question CIA analysts about their finding that Putin interfered to help Trump. But that question has already been asked—by a Trump loyalist. Mike Pompeo grilled the analysts in his own review and found nothing wrong with their analysis.”
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/07/12/pompeo-cia-russia-findings-1409190?__twitter_impression=true

Since then, we have discovered that the DNC server was never really inspected by our IC. Other details have come to light.

U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Barr wants Durham to question CIA analysts about their finding that Putin interfered to help Trump. But that question has already been asked—by a Trump loyalist. Mike Pompeo grilled the analysts in his own review and found nothing wrong with their analysis.”
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/07/12/pompeo-cia-russia-findings-1409190?__twitter_impression=true

Since then, we have discovered that the DNC server was never really inspected by our IC. Other details have come to light.

U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

Your dates are backward. Unless you're Benjamin Button.

[Anonymous]

You trumpsters are despicable. My god. Just move to Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Barr wants Durham to question CIA analysts about their finding that Putin interfered to help Trump. But that question has already been asked—by a Trump loyalist. Mike Pompeo grilled the analysts in his own review and found nothing wrong with their analysis.”
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/07/12/pompeo-cia-russia-findings-1409190?__twitter_impression=true

Since then, we have discovered that the DNC server was never really inspected by our IC. Other details have come to light.

U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

The box itself wasn't, but the disk image was. This has been hashed to death on this forum. The box will not yield any additional information because it's just a box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

So giving states money for ballot box security and requiring people to report illegal foreign solicitaitions have no chance of passing the GOP senate.

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Don't rely on CNN to provide the truth. Look into the bill.

I see nothing wrong with it. Please tell me what parts you object to.

REQUIRING paper ballot AND outlining early voting standards is directly interfering with local decisions surrounding elections. It's as if the Democrats are putting elections under federal control.
And, requiring the president and VP to release their tax returns has no place in this bill.
These things have nothing to do with election security. There are other issues as well.

It isn't a matter of federal control, it is a matter of setting baseline security standards as a result of the findings in the Mueller Report.

And yes, the tax returns absolutely do - we need to know if our elected officials are beholden to anyone other than the American people. It hasn't been an issue since Watergate, until now.

Better check with Nancy and Chuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

So giving states money for ballot box security and requiring people to report illegal foreign solicitaitions have no chance of passing the GOP senate.

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Don't rely on CNN to provide the truth. Look into the bill.

I see nothing wrong with it. Please tell me what parts you object to.

REQUIRING paper ballot AND outlining early voting standards is directly interfering with local decisions surrounding elections. It's as if the Democrats are putting elections under federal control.
And, requiring the president and VP to release their tax returns has no place in this bill.
These things have nothing to do with election security. There are other issues as well.

It isn't a matter of federal control, it is a matter of setting baseline security standards as a result of the findings in the Mueller Report.

And yes, the tax returns absolutely do - we need to know if our elected officials are beholden to anyone other than the American people. It hasn't been an issue since Watergate, until now.

Elected officials have to fill out financial disclosure forms.
Tax returns are not going to show what you think they will.

[Anonymous]

About that dossier.....

Some in the news media have tried in recent days to rekindle their long-lost love affair with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his now infamous dossier.

The main trigger was a lengthy interview in June with the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, which some news outlets suggested meant U.S. officials have found Steele, the former Hillary Clinton-backed political muckraker, to be believable.

“Investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising,” Politico crowed. The Washington Post went even further, suggesting Steele’s assistance to the inspector general might “undermine Trumpworld’s alt-narrative” that the Russia-collusion investigation was flawed.

There is evidence Steele told the DOJ in July, and the State Department in October, about all of these flaws in his work, and that State officials even detected blatant inaccuracies in his intelligence. If so, all of that information should have been flagged by the FBI as potentially derogatory information weighing against Steele’s use as a source for the FISA warrant.

But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

The over-under isn’t flattering to Steele.

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.

In other words, it was mostly useless.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453384-fbis-spreadsheet-puts-a-stake-through-the-heart-of-steeles-dossier